D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark American film that ushered in many of the hallmarks of classic Hollywood cinema. It is preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the AFI (American Film Institute). Yet it is also a film which advocates white supremacy and lionizes the Ku Klux Klan. Can such a film truly be great? Why or why not? What about other films such the Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will a film that trumpets Nazi ideology and celebrates Adolph Hitler? Do political and moral statements matter in an artwork? Or is it enough to be technically and artistically brilliant? Can an artwork's message trump its style?
I do not believe that D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation can be considered a great movie because a great movie should be the best it can possibly be in all parts and characteristics of the movie. The Birth of a Nation is a movie that may have great technical aspects to it like the cross cuts, POV shots/ reaction shots, and the chase scene, but the content of the movie is incredibly abhorrent and racist. Even for 1915 when the movie was released, the explicit racist ideas portrayed in the movie was not the dominant culture in the United States. The Birth of a Nation was an influential movie culturally and through its film style. Culturally, it led to a massive rise in racist ideas and the KKK. It put many racist ideas into the public culture, and spread racist ideology throughout the country. However, in film culture, the movie was a large innovation and step forward in production quality and editing. The development of techniques that are still used today like the chase scene and the cross cut editing show how influential the movie actually was. Along with that, the content/plot of the movie does keep the interest of the viewer and also uses plot aspects that Hollywood and other movies still use today despite the clear racism throughout the movie. We still talk about and consider this film today because of these two influential aspects, but I think the racist ideology that it portrays in its content stops it from being considered a great movie today.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that “Birth of a Nation” should be considered a great film, because a great film has to balance both quality content and top-notch technique. Whenever we consider labelling something else as great, whether it’s an athlete, an actor, or a musician, they must be well rounded in order to earn the label. Griffith’s ingenuity and technique throughout filming is agreed by most to be impressive and influential but it isn’t enough to be considered great. The chase scene was, without a doubt, a piece of impressive camera-work. The inclusion of one POV shot within another, such as when the woman is looking at the squirrel as the actor in blackface watches her nearby was a technique used to stir up a sense of fear and uneasiness for viewers. In addition, the incorporation of an extreme longshot of the woman in the middle of the woods made viewers anxious about the isolation from safety that the woman is experiencing. On top of that, the actor in black face walks onto the screen in a way that it appears as if he has walked in front of viewers. This change in movement from the left to the right of the screen to a more direct view of the chase likely caught many off-guard in what was one of the first jump-scares in cinema history. All of these isolated examples of film ingenuity on their own can be used to teach various techniques, but just because something is a teaching point, doesn’t make it great. The only modern films that are deemed great are those that have this balance of delivery and content and don’t spew racist propaganda. In today’s world, “Birth of a Nation” wouldn’t be seen as better than movies that use the very same techniques because it is merely respected for its influence at the time. As a society, we should learn about history as it happened, but we should never deem any of our worst moments as “great.” Since “Birth of a Nation’s” undoubtedly technical delivery relies on some of, if not the most-vile racist propaganda portrayed in film to get its message across, it shouldn’t be worthy of the title “great.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that The Birth of a Nation is essentially not a great film because of its purpose; however, the context in which it is presented may change the purpose to be different from the original. The film is regarded by many viewers to be of the first to incorporate technical aspects such as point of view shots, suspenseful scenes, color, movement, and symbolism. For example, the scene when the woman looks at the squirrel is framed in black to make it clear to the viewers that she is observing the squirrel. At the same time, the actor in blackface is watching the woman, which is intended to make the audience fearful and interested in what happens next. The chase scene also utilizes many cross cuts of the woman, her brother, and the actor in blackface, which creates more suspense. There are also many symbols used, including the water at the stream and the relative smallness of the woman in the long shot of the forest, which both represent innocence, and the fence around the house, which represents how the woman leaves the protective barrier. Many viewers agree that these are among the sophisticated technical aspects of the film. However, the film intends to promote racism by using stereotypes of Black people from southern perspectives at the time. It idolizes groups such as the KKK while making it seem like Black people are unintelligent and immoral, which is shown in the chase scene. After the woman falls to her death, the film’s intertitle praises her for choosing to give up her life to escape from the man. The story is not necessarily boring; however, some viewers may be hurt and others may be swayed by the implications of the movie. I think there are some more subtle examples of media which may be well crafted but are essentially biased in terms of content; examples include Lady and the Tramp, The History of Magic in North America, If I Ran the Zoo, Troubled Blood, and more. While these stories are obviously racist, inaccurate representations, I think a lot of critique depends on opinion as well. One of my relatives is a vegan abolitionist and he dislikes how animal consumption is normalized by the media; he may take this subject more seriously than others. The opinions of the creators are largely reflected in their work. This poses another question: can a film with an amazing main message still be great if it includes negative stereotypes or portrayals of some groups for just a couple of minutes? I think that whatever the answer may be, it is important to view these films through a critical standpoint so that we can recognize the biases and perspectives of these films that do exist and have made large impacts in history. We can learn from their technical aspects to create entertaining works of art, and at the same time learn from their mistakes and teach others to use media to promote good messages instead of harmful biased stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteDespite the innovative film techniques used in Birth of a Nation, it should not be celebrated as one of the greatest movies of all time due to the abhorrent racist ideology entangled throughout the film. In order to qualify as one of the greatest movies of all time, a film must excel in all categories that would make a movie great such as artistic vision, plot, and impact. In regard to Birth of a Nation, it effectively fails in at least two of these categories. The plot is full of disgusting racist stereotypes, making it almost unwatchable for a modern-day audience. The impact is arguable even worse than the plot of this movie. The movie portrays the KKK as heroes, which ultimately leads to a revival of the appalling terrorist group. Shortly after the release of the film, William J. Simmons led a group of men to burn a cross in Georgia, effectively reviving the KKK. Thus, the movie had an extreme negative impact as it brought a new life to such a hateful and violent organization. One could argue that the film should still be considered great because it is spectacular in one aspect, artistic vision. However, this is not the case since in film, plot and artistic vision must work together in harmony to create a truly great movie. Despite how fantastic the plot might be, if it is shot in a very boring or off-putting way, audiences will not want to watch the movie. The same holds if the film has a creative and appealing film style but a boring plot, audiences will not want to watch the film. Thus illustrating that for a movie to be truly great, it must have a great artistic vision and plot. One could argue that the theme of the plot would be acceptable at the time, making the movie at least a great movie at the time. This argument would make sense if the movie simply promoted the racist propaganda that was preexistent at the time of its release. However, Birth of a Nation pushed racist propaganda that shifted the minds of lots of viewers. The movie includes two main narratives regarding African Americans: the first being that white women were in extreme danger from black men, and the second was that the KKK were heroes. The use of an entertaining storyline combined with the brilliant cinematography throughout the movie allow the movie to spread such a horrible message to the viewers which shifted their beliefs. It is evident that the movie changed its viewers’ ideologies since after pushing the narrative that the KKK were heroes, the group was effectively revived. Overall, despite using extremely innovative film techniques, this film cannot qualify as a great film since it completely misses in at least two other categories necessary to deem it a great film.
ReplyDeleteIn the film Birth of a Nation, director D.W Griffith uses revolutionary filming techniques that brought the film from a temporary attraction to a movie in the top 100s of all time. However, the film is highly controversial, portraying white actors playing as black face, using racist stereotypes, and popularizing the Ku Klux Klan. So should this film be praised in modern day society despite these disgusting themes? Do moral statements even matter in films? In my opinion, I do think this film should be taught in modern day society, and modern statements do matter. If Birth of a Nation were directed today, I would have a different opinion on this topic, but because, at that time, the film was not earth shattering offensive, the moral statements can be overlooked in order to teach the brilliance of Griffith’s filming techniques. Other films such as Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, celebrating both Nazi ideoology and Adolph Hitler, did not have a monumental impact on how films are filmed; Griffith’s work did. During one of the action scenes in the film, although short, used just about every possible technique the cameras allowed. Using close ups to capture symbolism, medium shots to show emotions, landscape shots to allow the audience to grasp the fear of defeat in the chase scenes. In addition, Griffith added a new technique, a jump scare. During the chase scene, both characters are shown running from right to left, just like every other film at its time. During the landscape shot we see the woman running, following the film laws, right to left; however the perpetrator breaks the law and surprises both the woman and the audience as he comes in from an unexpected area. Scenes like these, using the creative techniques at hand, are why I believe Birth of a Nation should continue to be taught and praised as one of the best films of its time.
ReplyDeleteDespite its artistic and stylistic brilliance, I do not believe that The Birth of a Nation can be considered a great film because of its moral implications. Style and artistic technique are certainly important in determining the greatness of a film, but the messages and ideas behind films are also important. D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation was one of the first films made in the Hollywood style, and the techniques Griffith used to create it were innovative, becoming a benchmark and standard for film-making. Compared to earlier films like those made by Georges Méliès, The Birth of a Nation told a story far more realistic, and the editing and camera techniques became more discreet. For example, Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon features many flashy editing tricks and skills such as aliens disappearing in a cloud of colorful dust after being struck by a person. Meanwhile, in The Birth of a Nation, Griffith expertly shoots and edits the film in a way that clearly indicates location, setting, and timing in a far less obvious and explicit way. For example, before the woman jumps off the cliff, she first looks down, and the next shot is from an angle as low as the bottom of the cliff, showing the height of the jump that the woman is about to make. Also, the film utilizes some close-up or medium shots to vividly depict the emotions of the characters, such as the fear of the woman as she sees the black man approaching, another technique not present in Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon. Techniques like these told stories in a way not done before, making The Birth of a Nation one of the most influential films in history, and this is one of the reasons why this film is still discussed today. Another reason, however, is that the storyline of the film is horribly racist, portraying black men stereotypically as being stupid, lustful, and aggressive. Film is part of culture, and culture influences society, so it is unsurprising that the racist characteristics of The Birth of a Nation influenced public opinion in favor of racism and the Ku Klux Klan, which is portrayed in the film as being a saving force for white women. In fact, the KKK used the film to help with recruitment, and its recruitment increased after the film’s release (NPR).
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the film has great stylistic and technical attributes as well as morally abhorrent qualities. How important, though, are stylistic and technical qualities of a film compared to the values, ideas, and messages behind the film? It would be difficult to make a blanket claim that one is more important than the other, or to make a strict rubric with these qualities as criteria to evaluate the greatness of a film, as this sort of mathematical method of evaluation seems unfit for judging art. However, in the case of The Birth of a Nation, I think that the immorality of the message of the film, as well its societal impact, damage its reputation to the point where even Griffith’s artistic and stylistic brilliance cannot make it a great film. It is certainly an influential and important film due to its technical and stylistic innovation, but its racist aspects prevent it from being a film that can be considered great.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/08/383279630/100-years-later-whats-the-legacy-of-birth-of-a-nation
Although Birth of a nation by D.W. Griffith was stylistically great and monumentally influential in that way to the American film scene in future years to come, it was a morally wrong movie and furthered the progression and growth of white supremacy in America. While pondering the question if Birth of a Nation is a great movie and especially top one hundred movies of all time, I would agree that it is in that top one hundred list. While I don’t agree with the morals and poor depiction of free African Americans in the film, I would agree with the fact that it is great because of the educational perspective it provides, and because of the film’s ability to be preserved over time to be used to show the progression of film and to show how advanced the effects and acting was at the time. The landscape, perspective, close up, and different settings played throughout the film are a testament to its artistic greatness for the time. If we strip away the racism that flows prevalently throughout the film and focus solely on its cinematic prowess and intelligence that’s seen within the different array of scenes in the film, we can most certainly call it a great film in terms of that criteria. Although plot, acting, and appearance are extremely important in making a film great, the impact of a film is more important because films have a reaction on people and can change an individual’s ideas and the way they see the world. Because black men are being depicted as a threat to white women in this movie, it resonated with its viewers and validated and accelerated their racist views even more, thus increasing hate in America.
ReplyDelete-evan mcdaniel
I believe that the innovative and progessive filmmaking techniques used in Birth of a Nation can be used as a valuable teaching tool and has helped shape modern movie making in a way that constitutes it as a “great film.” The controversy over Birth of a Nation has followed the movie into the 21st century. The majority of the issues surrounding the film stem from its racist and problematic ideas portradied to the audience. The ideology in the movie was consistent with what would be expected from its time period during 1915. However, I believe that the huge strides the film was able to make in cinematography history allow it to be considered one of the greats. The film revolutionized techniques still used today such as cross cutting, close ups, and panoramic shots. The movie was also able to introduce one of the greatest tools the horror movie directors have today, the jump scare. Griffith’s filming techniques had a ripple effect across the movie industry at the time, and without Birth of a Nation Hollywood would not be what it is today. However it is still important to acknowledge the problems with this film before its vast innovations can be utilized. During the creation of Birth of a Nation “The social reality of racism informed the development of filmmaking, facilitating a troubling yet persistent link between cinema and the politics of racism” (Bernardi). I believe that Birth of a Nation is considered a great movie because of its widespread invitation to the film industry, however it must be noted that the link between cinema and the politics of racism must be broken.
ReplyDeleteDespite the unacceptable actions and theme throughout this movie, I do believe that it is possible for this to be a great film due to the filming of the movie itself. The film used an immense amount of different camera techniques, which allowed for the best angles and shots from all different sides and distances. For this film to be in the top 100 films of all time by AMC and AFI it clearly impacted people, and mainly impacted future films that could use the same techniques that this film used. I do feel that depending on the time, this film would most likely not be considered a great film today, but back when it was created, it would have been possible to be a great film. Films created today with white supremacy and support for the Ku Klux Klan would not be tolerable and acceptable today. A film like Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will can't compare to The Birth of a Nation because it didn't have a long lasting impact on the film industry. I think that this film would've been a lot better had it not consisted of all the racist content that it did, but the reason for it being such a good film wasn't the story but rather the way it had been filmed. I do believe that because of the method that was used in the filming of this film, that is why this can be considered one of the greatest films back when it was created.
ReplyDeleteI believe that to be considered a great film, a film must be great in all aspects including content. However, while the content of a film plays a massive role in its designation as a great film, I believe that certain elements of a film can be considered great regardless of the content. While the content of The Birth of A Nation is very unethical and disturbing, to say the least, its camera work and framing can be appreciated by film enthusiasts everywhere. One scene in particular that can be appreciated for its camera work alone is the chasing scene where the audience is shown three perspectives: the daughter, the son, and the African-American perpetrator. The camera work creatively and effectively depicts different perspectives by using point of view techniques such as implementing a circular frame to illustrate the perspective of a human eye and successfully transitioning from one perspective to another to create a smooth narrative. This is just one example of an element of the film that can be considered great regardless of the bothersome content being shown. Mise en scene is often considered a prominent aspect of a film and its designation as a great film. According to the Oxford Dictionary, mise en scene is “the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in a play.” According to this definition, mise en scene exists independent of content, plot, and storyline and therefore can be appreciated and analyzed in a film such as The Birth of A Nation. Overall, I disagree with the statement that an artwork’s message can trump its style because there are many different elements that come together to create a piece of art and it is important to analyze all elements of a piece regardless of the role one might play.
ReplyDeleteWhile D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation incorporates revolutionary filmmaking techniques, the problematic message it contains prevents the film from truly being great. A film’s artistic value is essential, but a movie will never be truly great unless it has a beneficial message and impact on society. However, Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation glamourizes White supremacy, discrimination toward African Americans, and the actions of the Ku Klux Klan. Shortly after the film’s initial screening, KKK riots plagued many cities, which eventually banned the film. In the film, African Americans were characterized as cunning, primitive, morally corrupt, and dangerous to the American way of life. In contrast, the Ku Klux Klansmen are heroically portrayed as brave patriots protecting the American people from the “inherently dangerous” African Americans rising in social status through the Reconstruction Era. In one scene, Gus, a Black man, is chasing Flora, a White woman, through a forest because Gus cannot accept Flora’s rejection of them getting married. In the parallel edit, Flora’s brother Ben, the founder of the KKK, is desperately making his way through the forest to make sure Flora is safe. However, by the time Ben finds Flora, she is seconds away from dying because she chose to jump off a cliff to resist being assaulted by Gus, who is long gone. As a result, Ben assembles the KKK and vows to kill Gus and inhibit the African American race to prevent further unfortunate incidents. Unfortunately, many White viewers internalized Ben’s sentiment and felt their livelihoods were threatened by African Americans. Many White Americans justified their hatred and cruel action toward African Americans by characterizing African Americans as degenerate compared to White Americas like the film The Birth of a Nation did. As a result, harmful narratives of White supremacy were perpetuated for decades to come. Although Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation was artistically brilliant, it should never be considered a great film because it negatively impacted society.
ReplyDeleteThe Birth of a Nation deserves to be in the top 100 movies of all time, as it is one of the first movies to demonstrate how revolutionary filming techniques can be used to create one of the most impactful movements in American history. In The Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith used different frame shots to portray the complex emotions that are experienced by the characters. For example, the point of view shot was used to show how the black man saw the young lady, which represented the desire he had for the woman. The close up shot of the black man portrayed a dull, intimating image of the character as he stalks his “prey”. These two shots create an intense atmosphere for the audience, for which they then form disgusted feelings towards the black man. This effect is exactly what the director intended, which shows how well Griffith used his filming techniques to create emotional connections with his audience. These connections are constantly built throughout the movie as Griffith continues to use various shots. The extreme long shot of the woods demonstrated the mysteriousness of the scene, which allowed the sudden appearance of the antagonist to be more nerve wracking. By using these advanced and diverse techniques, Griffith successfully convinced countless Americans to find the KKK heroic and honorable. The Birth of a Nation was a movie that once again sparked the KKK movement, which is arguably one of the most impactful events that formed American history. Although this movie was delivering one of the most corrupt messages, that doesn’t take away from the fact that its impactfulness is a direct result of the editing and filming directed by D.W. Griffith. To this day, there are many racist analogies included in the most popular movies. The Birth of a Nation is clearly not in the top 100 list for how morally correct the content is, nor is it for how racist it is. The Birth of a Nation deserves to be in the top 100 movies of all time for its significant impact on the movie industry at an early stage.
ReplyDeleteFrom a purely stylistic standpoint, D.W.Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation was a masterpiece. It utilized different cuts and scenes to alter the perspective of how audiences viewed the movie and did lighting in different ways to convey emotion and give the viewers more foreshadowing and set up the environment. Some cuts showed people walking across the screen, and then showed them in a new location. These jump cuts are now the cinematographic norm. In the chase scene where the African-American captain was chasing the girl, you can see symbolism in the wilting bushes he hides in, and how his face is sometimes obscured. These “close ups” are also a cinematographic norm in the status quo, which further illustrates how revolutionary the filming tactics of Birth of a Nation were.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, due to the problematic message of Birth of a Nation, I don’t believe it can be considered a revolutionary film overall. If a film is to be considered revolutionary, it must be revolutionary not in just tactics, but in ideas as a whole. The Birth of a Nation, despite being one of the highest-grossing films of the time, and one that was shown in the White House by President Woodrow Wilson, was an abjectly racist movie with antiquated ideals from the 19th century.
All in all, The Birth of a Nation is an excellent example of what can be done even with century-old cinematography technology when proper tactics are used, but does not convey these tactics in the right context, instead using them to further a message of racism and hatred.